因為經常在工作上及生活上碰到其他玩家及經營娃娃機的業者，提出許多實務上的法律問題來詢問，由於翻遍法律書籍及期刊文章，並未見有人對於娃娃機相關法律問題，有概括性的介紹及探討，於是為了可以「產學相長」，學生便起心動念著手撰寫本文，以供大眾能瞭解娃娃機到底為何物，也讓法界人士能藉由本文增進對娃娃機產業經營及相關規定的認識，並對於如何兼顧經營娃娃機的公益與私益，提出處理既有法律問題與確立相關政策的法理基礎，以供有關機關立法與修法時參考。
在民國89年2月3日「電子遊戲場業管理條例」頒布施行前，關於挾娃娃機機台之管理係屬於無法可管地帶，政府機關對其也無任何監督機制，形成一個法律三不管地帶。
本文擬透過對於娃娃機的一系列介紹，從娃娃機評鑑主管機關及相關法規，以及目前各直轄市政府頒布的”選物販賣機自治條例”中，對於娃娃機的營業時間及地點之限制，由憲法層級與角度切入，藉以探討、省思及修法之餘地。尤其是兼顧業者的私益與可能衝突的公益之法理基礎架構，能夠讓業者的生計及執法機關執法裁量間，能有所平衡，供執法機關執法裁量時參酌及日後修法時能有所參考，也能讓法律實務界對於娃娃機這個領域有初步認識，在作成處分或判決時，能夠盡量有同樣的裁量標準，避免同一事實卻出現截然不同的見解一再發生，導致人民對於司法的不信賴感居高不下。
本文擬從娃娃機的沿革發展作一概括性介紹，再嘗試從憲法中關於營業自由和遷徙自由的權利、司法院大法官會議解釋文，再至「電子遊戲場業管理條例」、稅捐稽徵法、地方政府選物販賣機自治條例―以新北市自助選物販賣事業管理自治條例等規定為主，藉以探討、研析直轄市政府所制定之自助選物販賣自治條例，是否有牴觸憲法中關於營業自由的權利規定？是否有修法改善之餘地？此外，並從娃娃機之特性與營業地點、時間與吸引消費者的誘因等，研究一套得以兼顧公益與私益的法理架構，以供相關立法、修法與執法時之參考。
由於娃娃機的發展，它的態樣已經多樣化，必須與時俱進，根據其益智性、娛樂性與單純物品交易性等，做合理的差別待遇，並且根據它的娛樂性之有無與高低，以決定是否應課徵娛樂稅，與稅率的高低。但是，因為當前娃娃機業者，大多數採取現場無人經管店面，消費是採投幣式，而不是販賣娛樂票券。因此，要如何課徵娛樂稅，才能符合量能課稅的原則，也是一大問題。即使是營業稅的課徵，其稅基的掌握，也是問題。
基於以上發現的現狀與困境，本文建議娃娃機的營業，應根據其益智性與純屬於「選物交易」類型，分別規定其可以經營的地點(特別是和特殊機構間的距離)、交易年齡限制(依據經營類型)、營業時間和噪音的管制(營業主的設施必須有相應的隔音設備)等，制定或修正相關管制規範，以落實憲法保障人民財產權(營業權)、營業遷徙權，以及相關稅捐負擔的量能課稅。此外，如何讓娃娃機的營業步上正軌，以更健康的營業模式，保障消費者為我國憲法第22條規定所直接保障的娛樂權，更是值得有關機關於制定相關管制規範時，應該同時兼顧的真正公益問題。

Because I often meet other players and operators of crane machines in work and life, and raise many practical legal questions to ask, because I have searched through law books and journal articles, I have not seen anyone have a general introduction and discussion of legal issues related to crane machines, so in order to "learn from industry and learning", therefore have the idea to write this article, so that the public can understand what crane machines are, and also let people in the legal profession enhance their understanding of the operation of the crane machine industry and related regulations through this article. And for how to take into account the public welfare and private interests of operating crane machines, the legal basis for dealing with existing legal issues and establishing relevant policies is proposed, so as to provide reference for relevant authorities when legislating and amending the law.
Before the "Electronic Game Industry Management Ordinance" was promulgated and implemented on February 3, 2000, the management of claw machine machines was an unmanageable area, and government agencies did not have any supervision mechanism for it, forming a legal three-no-brainer zone.
This article intends to introduce the business hours and locations of claw machines from a series of introductions to claw machines, from the claw machine evaluation authorities and related regulations, as well as the "Autonomous Regulations on Selected Vending Machines" promulgated by various municipal governments. Restrictions are approached from the level and perspective of the constitution, providing room for discussion, reflection and revision of the law. In particular, the legal infrastructure that takes into account the private interests of businesses and public interests that may conflict can provide a balance between the livelihood of businesses and the enforcement discretion of law enforcement agencies, which can be used as a reference for law enforcement agencies when making enforcement decisions and when revising laws in the future. It can allow the legal practice community to have a preliminary understanding of the field of claw machines, and try to have the same discretionary standards when making sanctions or judgments, so as to avoid the repeated occurrence of completely different opinions on the same facts, which will lead to people's distrust of the judiciary always too high.
This article intends to give a general introduction to the evolution and development of crane machines, and then try to discuss and analyze whether the autonomous regulations on self-service selection and sales enacted by the governments of the municipalities directly under the Central Government violate the provisions of the Constitution on the right to self-service selection and sales, and in the meanwhile violate the provisions of the Constitution on the right to freedom of business. Is there any more possibility for improvement? In addition, from the characteristics of the crane machine, the place of business, the time and the incentives to attract consumers, etc., a set of legal frameworks that can take into account both public welfare and private interests are studied, so as to provide reference for relevant legislation, amendment and law enforcement.
Due to the development of the crane machine, its form has been diversified, we must keep pace with the times, according to its intellectual, entertainment and simple goods trading, etc., to make reasonable differential treatment, and according to its entertainment and the level of the level, in order to decide whether to levy entertainment tax, and the level of the tax rate. However, because most of the current crane machine operators adopt on-site unmanned stores, the consumption is in the form of coin-optic rather than selling entertainment tickets. Therefore, how to levy entertainment tax in order to comply with the principle of taxation according to capacity is also a major problem. Even if the business tax is levied, the grasp of the tax base is also a problem.
Based on the current situation and dilemma found above, this paper suggests that the business of crane machines should be based on their intellectual properties and pure "selection transactions", respectively stipulating the location where they can operate (especially the distance from special institutions), the age limitation of transactions (according to the type of business), the control of business hours and noise (the facilities of the business owner must have corresponding soundproof equipment), etc., and formulate or amend relevant control norms, so as to implement the constitutional protection of people's property rights (business rights), business migration rights, and the amount of relevant tax burdens. In addition, how to put the business of the crane machine on the right track, with a healthier business model, to protect the consumer's right to entertainment directly protected by Article 22 of the Constitution of our country, is a real public welfare issue that should be taken into account when the relevant machine formulates relevant regulatory norms.

一、期刊文章
黃錦堂教授（2016），營業管制的性質與地方自治條例－釋字第 738 號解釋評論，法令月刊第 67 卷第 12 期，法源資訊重新校編頁 1~31。
蔡志方教授（1993），布娃娃機的娛樂稅與營業稅，納稅人雜誌，83 期，頁 28～29。
蔡志方教授（2022），正當行政程序與行政事實行為論，法源法律網-法學論著-法學文摘-正當行政程序與行政事實行為論 （lawbank.com.tw），頁 4。
蔡茂寅教授（2019），地方制度法依司法院釋字第 738 號解釋的新發展，中國地方自治第 72 卷第 5 期，法源資訊重新校編頁 1~12。
行政機關函釋令
1.經濟部西元二０一四年十二月二日經商字第 10300122070 號函
2.經濟部西元二０一八年六月十三日經商字第 10702412670 號函
3.經濟部西元二０一八年十月三十一日經商字第 10702057660 號函
政府機關報告
1.許淑品、鄭三龍，西元二００六年十月二日，臺北市商業管理處 95 年考察日韓兩國電子遊戲場業管理及發展概況-出國考察報告